sustained
EB-1C
sustained EB-1C Case: Telecommunications
Decision Summary
The appeal was sustained because the petitioner provided sufficient new evidence to overcome the director's adverse findings. The petitioner proved it had been doing business for more than one year prior to filing and successfully established the requisite qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer through corporate acquisition documents.
Criteria Discussed
Doing Business For At Least One Year Qualifying Relationship With Foreign Employer
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto preventclearlyunwarranted invasionof personalpnvacy PUBLICCOPY U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) 20 MassachusettsAve. N.W., MS2090 Washington,DC 20529-2090 8 U.S.Citizenship and Immigrationn Services DATE: FEB 15 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE: IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasa MultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: This is thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Anyfurtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice. PerryRhew hief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov Page2 DISCUSSION: The preferencevisa petition was deniedby the Director, TexasService Center. The matteris now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal The decisionof the director will be withdrawnandtheappealwill besustained. The petitioner is a multinational corporation operating in the United States as a telecommunications manufacturer and developer. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.In denyingthepetition,thedirector foundthattherecordfailedto establishthat: 1) thepetitionerhadbeendoingbusinessfor at leastoneyear priorto thefiling of thepetitionpursuant8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D);and2) thepetitionerhasanaffiliateor parent-subsidiaryrelationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer. On appeal,counselsubmits a brief disputing the director's findings as well as additional documentation clarifying the petitioner's ownershipand its businessactivities in the United States. Section203(b) of the Act statesin pertinentpart: (1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C): (C) Certain Multinational Executivesand Managers. - An alien is describedin this subparagraphif the alien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the alien'sapplicationfor classificationand admissioninto the United Statesunder this subparagraph,has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeksto enter the United Statesin order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerialor executive. Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisiontoonly thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm,corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity, andwhoarecomingto theUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary. In thepresentmatter,therecordshowsthatthepetitioneroriginallyclaimedthat2008wastheyearduring which it was first established. However, on appeal, counsel assertsand provides sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the date indicated in the Form I-140 as the year in which the petitioner was establishedwasincorrect.Rather,thepetitioner'sappellateExhibitG showsthat,in fact,thepetitionerwas organizedasa limitedliability companyin theStateof DelawareonJune22,2005andhadactuallyexistedas a businessentityfor approximatelyfouryearsat thetimethepetitionwasfiled. Otherevidenceshowsthat thepetitionerwasalsodoingbusinessandthusmeetstheprovisionsof 8 C.F.R.§204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). Additionally,the petitionerprovidedcorporatedocumentsto showthe petitioner'scorporateacquisitions which resultedin its purchaseof a groupof companies,including the beneficiary'sforeign employer. As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has provided sufficient documentationto establishthat the requisite qualifyingrelationshipexistspursuantto8 C.F.R.§204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). Page3 Accordingly,theAAO concludesthatthepetitionerhasovercomethe director'sadversefindingsandthe denialmustthereforebewithdrawn. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner. Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Thepetitionerin theinstantcasehassustainedthat burden. ORDER: The appealis sustained.
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.